William Kircher Quotes

But the animation has become very good, and I think that a movie is not a book, and a book is not a movie.

Books and movies are different art forms with different rules. And because of that, they never translate exactly.

Well, the medium of film is so different than a book that just by bringing it into visual storytelling is to change it up. I think in a book, in any book, you can have a reactive character. Some of the great novels of all time have had that, but in a film you can't do that.

A lot of books, if you take them at face value, they're just not gonna work as films.

Is an audience open to seeing a film that isn't what they expect when they see a film that's been adapted from a children's book?

A movie is a movie and a book is a book, and they have different rules.

It is customary for the writer to sneer that Hollywood has traduced their book. Well, I adore my film.

The script for 'Trainspotting' was amazing, and it was different from the book.

It's always a challenge to adapt a novel for screen, a visual medium.

I'd like to think that my films are personal enough to exist without hearkening back to their respective novels.

Sometimes I get to see a movie that's adapted from a book that I haven't heard about or that I love the movie so much that I will, of course, read the book.

If you are making a script based on a book it can be frustrating going back to the source novel, because you're turning the story into a totally different thing; the narrative of film is different from that of a book.

People are mistaken to view cinema as some sort of gimmick. It's very much ingrained in the ways in which we understand each other.

If you take a really good book, then the potential is for a really good film. But you've got to get it right.

As an author, you can't expect a movie to be an illustration of the book. If that's what you hope for, you shouldn't sell the rights.

You know, I feel like my job is to write a book. Then filmmakers come and they make a movie. And they're two really different art forms.

The novel succeeds on terms exclusive to literature. A good film succeeds on terms exclusive to the cinema. That's why so many bad novels can become good movies, like 'Jaws' or 'The Godfather.'

I know a movie and a book are two different things and you are going do different media in different ways. No author can want a movie to be exactly like the book because then it will be a bad movie.

'Up the Junction' really made me understand the power of cinema to create a vivid sense of a community. When I went on to make 'Bhaji on the Beach,' it was this sense I tried to recreate.

I'm all for whatever transitions the book properly to a movie.

Some things that work in a comic don't work in a film, and vice versa.

I've seen movies that are slavishly devoted to books but don't work because they haven't turned it into a movie: they've turned it into a dramatisation of the different scenes.

'Richard III' is a really difficult play to film - it's involved, often obscure. I felt it absolutely necessary to do more simplification than I've ever done before.

I think it's always a challenge to adapt a beautiful literary work into a fresh and alive film.

I think comics can be the basis for great films, but I think the focus of such a project should be on making the film as good as possible, not on painstakingly replicating the comic.